DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Steinbauer v. Stone, 88 N.W. 754.

182 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    85 Minn. 274, 277, 88 N.W.
  • Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company 170 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1969
  • Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company 170 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1969
    The rule that inadvertent error in the instructions to the jury may not, for the purpose of securing a review thereof on appeal, be called to the attention of the trial court for the first time in the notice of motion for a new trial has been the rule in this jurisdiction since Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • Donald v. Moses 94 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1959
  • Donald v. Moses 94 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1959
    Barnabas Hospital, 231 Minn. 384 , 43 N. W. (2d) 221 ; Dehen v. Beming, 198 Minn. 522 , ; Farnum v. Peterson-Biddick Co. 182 Minn. 338 , ; Anderson v. Wormser, 129 Minn. 8 , ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , 88 N. W. *195 754; 19 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Coble v. Lacey 90 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1958
  • Coble v. Lacey 90 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1958
    Barnabas Hospital, 231 Minn. 384 , 43 N. W. (2d) 221 ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
  • Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
    Barnabas Hospital, 231 Minn. 384 , 43 N. W. (2d) 221 ; Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 ; Dehen v. Berning, 198 Minn. 522 , ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • Francis v. Wilson 83 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1957
  • Francis v. Wilson 83 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1957
    reene v. Mathiowetz, 212 Minn. 171 , 3 N. W. (2d) 97 , we said that a verbal error or unintentional misstatement of law or fact which could have been corrected at the trial if the attention of the court had been called to it by counsel was not such an error as required reversal unless the erroneous instructions complained of were on some controlling proposition of law, citing Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 74 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1956
  • Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 74 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1956
    Barnabas Hospital, 231 Minn. 384 , 43 N. W. (2d) 221 ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • Adelmann v. Elk River Lumber Co. 65 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1954
  • Adelmann v. Elk River Lumber Co. 65 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1954
    Barnabas Hospital, 231 Minn. 384 , 43 N. W. (2d) 221 ; Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 ; Dehen v. Berning, 198 Minn. 522 , ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; 2 Youngquist & Blacik, Minnesota Rules Practice, Comments to Rule 51, p. 554.
  • State v. Billington 63 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1954
  • State v. Billington 63 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1954
    8 Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; see, State v. Lytle, 214 Minn. 171 , 7 N. W. (2d) 305 ; State v. Solum, 183 Minn. 36 , ; State v. Hagen, 160 Minn. 408 , ; State v. O’Connor, 154 Minn. 45 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
  • State v. Wilson 57 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1953
  • MacIllravie v. St. Barnabas Hospital 43 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 1950
  • MacIllravie v. St. Barnabas Hospital 43 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 1950
    The rule that inadvertent error in the instructions to the jury may not, for the purpose of securing a review thereof upon appeal, be called to the attention of the trial court for the first time in the notice of motion for a new trial has been the rule in this jurisdiction since Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • Slindee v. City of St. Paul 18 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1945
  • Slindee v. City of St. Paul 18 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1945
    Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • State v. Siebke 12 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1943
  • State v. Siebke 12 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1943
    We think this error is of the type falling well within the rule laid down in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274, 278 , , and what was there said in deciding this issue is equally applicable here: “If counsel deemed those instructions misleading, or likely to prejudice his client’s cause before the jury, the attention of the court should have been called to the matter, so that the mistake— for it \vas nothing m
  • State v. Lytle 7 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1943
  • State v. Lytle 7 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1943
    Consequently, if there is any mere verbal inadvertence, it comes within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • Greene v. Mathiowetz 3 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1942
  • Greene v. Mathiowetz 3 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1942
    A verbal error or unintentional misstatement of law or fact which could have been corrected at the trial had attention been called to it by counsel is not such error as requires reversal unless the erroneous instructions com *178 plained of were “on some controlling proposition of law.” Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274, 278 , .
  • Larson v. Sventek 1 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1941
  • Larson v. Sventek 1 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1941
    If the trial court had denied the motion for a new trial on the ground that the use of the word "and" instead of "or" was an obvious inadvertence under the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , 88 N.W.
  • Gates v. Herberger 279 N.W. 711 Minn. 1938
  • Gates v. Herberger 279 N.W. 711 Minn. 1938
    Co. 198 Minn. 79 , ; State v. Winberg, 196 Minn. 135 , ; Romann v. Bender, 190 Minn. 419 , ; Donaldson v. Carstensen, 188 Minn. 443 , ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • State v. Sprague 276 N.W. 744 Minn. 1937
  • State v. Sprague 276 N.W. 744 Minn. 1937
    Co. 198 Minn. 79 , *419 ; State v. Winberg, 196 Minn. 135 , ; Romann v. Bender, 190 Minn. 419 , ; Donaldson v. Carstensen, 188 Minn. 443 , ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • Schaedler v. New York Life Insurance 276 N.W. 235 Minn. 1937
  • Schaedler v. New York Life Insurance 276 N.W. 235 Minn. 1937
    Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • Timmerman v. March 271 N.W. 697 Minn. 1937
  • Timmerman v. March 271 N.W. 697 Minn. 1937
    Moreover, if there was any doubt in counsel’s mind on this point, he should have called it to the attention of the trial court under the rule in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , and Dehen v. Berning, 198 Minn. 522 , .
  • Finney v. Norwood 270 N.W. 692 Minn. 1936
  • Finney v. Norwood 270 N.W. 692 Minn. 1936
    Insofar as it failed in this respect, we think the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , is applicable.
  • Dehen v. Berning 270 N.W. 602 Minn. 1936
  • Irene v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 268 N.W. 866 Minn. 1936
  • Irene v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 268 N.W. 866 Minn. 1936
    Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Fredhom v. Smith, 193 Minn. 569 , .
  • Romann v. Bender 252 N.W. 80 Minn. 1934
  • Randall Co. v. Briggs 248 N.W. 752 Minn. 1933
  • Randall Co. v. Briggs 248 N.W. 752 Minn. 1933
    Moreover, in the absence of specific exception at the time, Ave think that the departure of the trial court from the rule as it now prevails was so slight as to come within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • State v. Solum 235 N.W. 390 Minn. 1931
  • State v. Solum 235 N.W. 390 Minn. 1931
    Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Eichhorn v. Lundin, 172 Minn. 591 , ; State v. Kaufman, 172 Minn. 139 , ; State v. Farmer, 179 Minn. 516 , .
  • Cargill Grain Co. v. Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship Co. 235 N.W. 268 Minn. 1931
  • Cargill Grain Co. v. Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship Co. 235 N.W. 268 Minn. 1931
    We think that the omission of the word “reasonably” in these circumstances comes within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , and we further believe that it cannot have misled the jury in view of the numerous times that the court charged that reasonable care was the measure of defendant’s duty.